The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

MARINE REVIEW. 9 The Engineers' Bill. Editor MARINE REVIEW: In your issue of Jan. 2, page 7, in the mat- ter of the bill of Senator W. C. Squires in behalf of marine engineers you say: "It is to be feared, however, that the engineers have attached some provisions to their bill that may delay or probably hinder altogether the passage of the measure." As all marine engineers are anxious to have this bill pass, we would thank you to name the provisions referred to. Will you kindly favor us, and oblige, GEO. P. WILSON, Corresponding Secretary, M, E. B. A., No. 13. Philadelphia, Pa., Jan. 7, 1895. The writer of the above communication is well known to marine engineers throughout this country, He has been a national officer of the organization and is prominent in the Philadelphia association. His re- quest to be informed regarding provisions in the engineers' bill which it is thought will delay passage of the measure is undoubtedly made in good faith, and the REVIEW will endeavor to answer him without any thought of hindering the passage of the bill, as we are firmly of the opinion that engineers of vessels of the United States should be classed as officers and should be in all cases citizens of the United States. Pro- visions of the bill aside from those relating to citizenship and the word "officers" are not objectionable any more than the more important features. We have simply said that they may delay action on the measure or probably prevent its passage altogether. Take, for instance, this feature of the bill: "No license shall be suspended or revoked except upon charges duly preferred in writing, veri- fied and acknowledged before an officer authorized to administer an oath, and sustained by the supervising inspector-general after an investigation of the charges, in which the accused shall be allowed counsel, and may testify in his own behalf; and in nocase shall the accused be deprived of his license until a charge of incompetency or unfitness against him shall be sustained by the supervising inspector general.' This provision in the bill would transfer to the supervising inspector-general the duty _ of reviewing all cases bearing upon the revocation of licenses. At pres- ent trials are conducted by local inspectors and the accused has the right to appeal to the supervising inspectors. The engineers propose that the supervising inspector-general sustain or turn down the local inspectors in their decisions; in other words they propose to attach additional work and responsibility to the office of the chief of the service. Now we do not claim to speak for Gen. Dumont in this matter, but it is well known that he has been seeking additional help in his office, and for this and other reasons we will be very much surprised if he gives earnest support to this change. He is to remain in office for some time to come and it would seem injudicious in the engineers to oppose him. The inspection officials as a whole will certainly not favor this provision of the bill. Would it not be better for the engineers to have the assistance of even a part, if not all, of the officials of the inspection service in trying to ac- complish the main objects in their bill--American citizenship and a favorable definition of the term " cfficers"' ? Another clause in the bill provides that "the examination of an applicant for license of a higher grade shall take place within ten days after such time as the applicant may request." Nowit is quite possible that engineers have been annoyed by being compelled to make several visits to the office of some local inspector before they managed to obtain a hearing when seeking an increase in grade of license, but this is a small matter compared with the first clause in the bill. Then why make an arbitrary limit of ten days? Local inspectors may claim that they are often long enough away from their offices on the work of inspecting vessels to make it impossible to comply with this ten-day rule, and if they so complain to the treasury department objection to this one clause may keep the bill in committee or cause it to be otherwise tied up until more pressing matters are demanding the attention of congress. Elimi- nate small matters from the bill and let the effort of all the engineers be on a satisfactory definition of the term officers and a plain clause pro- viding for the employment of Americans only as engineers. Not "Onto His dob." Editor MARINE REVIEW: I wish to call your attention to a very erroneous statement which appeared in this week's issue of the Railroad Gazette. In an item referring to the annual meeting of the Lake Car- riers' Association, they make the extraordinary statement that the num- ber of tons of freight carried by vessels of the association the past year was over 617,000. Yousee they got the tonnage of the association mixed with the amount of freight moved, which would be nearer 30,600,000 tons. This paper has within a year or so gone to reporting lake news and I think their reporter is not "onto his job," as this is not the first mistake, and they are very misleading to people who read the items and are not acquainted with the facts in the case. H. E. SCHMUCK, Springfield, Mass., Jan. 25, 1896. The Clyde Product and the Lake Fleet. Editor MARINE REVIEW: We have had some little discussion here regarding an item that appeared in certain papers a week or two ago, in which it was stated that the tonnage turned out on the Clyde during 1895 exceeded the combined tonnage owned on the great lakes. Is this statement not wrong, and have you any accurate figures on the subject ? M. SANFORD RICE. No. 5 Walnut street, Ashtabula, O. The statement is, of course, incorrect. Itis true that ship building on the Clyde and throughout the British isles is an immense industry, and its greatness is clearly shown when questions of this kind are brought up; but it is also true that the tonnage owned on the lakes is far in excess of the Clyde production for any year and is considerable larger than the new tonnage of the United Kingdom for 1895. The latest report of the United States commissioner of navigation shows that there was owned on the lakes on June 30, 1894, 3,342 vessels of 1,241,459 gross tons. Of these, 1,755 were steam vessels of 857,735 tons, 1,100 were sail vessels of 300,642 tons and 487 were unrigged crafts of -- 83,082 tons. Compared with the foregoing it is found that Lloyd's Register (British) in its summary of ship building for 1895, just issued, states that, exclusive of warships, 579 vessels of 950,967 tons gross (viz, 526 steamers of 904,991 tons, and 53 sailing vessels of 45,976 tons) were launched in the United Kingdom. The war ships launched at both government and private yards amounted to fifty-nine of the 148,111 tons displacement. The total output of the United Kingdom for the year was, therefore, 638 vessels of 1,099,078 tons. The output of 1895 in the United Kingdom was less than that of 1894 by over 95,000 tons, but the proportion of steam tonnage to the total tonnage launched was much higher. The total product of the Clyde in 1895, war ships included, was 359,625 tons, while that of the Tyne was 173,733 tons, the Wear 125,910 tons, the Tees 117,333 tons, Belfast and Londonderry 102,067 tons, West -- Hartlepool 90,689 tons and other districts smaller amounts. About 20 per cent. of the tonnage built in the United Kingdom during 1895 was to the order of foreign and colonial ship owners. We are inclined to think that we are doing great things on the lakes-- in having under contract as at present about $8,500,000 worth of new vessel property--but the foregoing statements show that the tonnage of 638 vessels launched in different parts of the British isles during 1895 was not far from the aggregate tonnage of all vessels owned on the lakes: in June last. Freights in Sixty-Six. Editor MARINE REVIEW: The spurt of advance in freights last year seems to have been overrated by the "kids" in the vessel business who thought, judging from the remarks of some of them, that freights have climbed to an unprecedented altitude. Although the 6-cent grain freight and $2 ore freight from Duluth was very acceptable, and was a liberal advance over recent years, it will size up very lowin comparison with freights in 1866 and some other later periods. Some of the charters then made, I recall and were as follows: Schooner Mediterranean, wheat, Chicago to Ogdensburg, 38 cents per bushel. Schooner Africa, wheat, Milwaukee to Ogdensburg, 34 cents, per bushel. Steamer D. W. Powers, ore, Marquette to Cleveland, $6.40 per ton. Brig Geo. M. Abell, coal, Cleveland, to Ogdensburg, $6 per ton. Doubtless some of the older brokers and vessel owners can recall examples of as high or even higher rates than the foregoing. B. lL. PENNINGTON, » Cleveland, Jan. 24, 1896. [The REVIEW will be pleased to receive from the older vessel men reminiscences along the line suggested by the foregoing letter.--EDp,] No Cause for Resolutions. Editor MARINE REVIEW: I notice in your issue of this week that the ship masters at their annual meeting passed a resolution opposing any change in the navigation laws on the lakes, and stating that this was prompted by a bill proposed by Representative Payne. These gentle- men were entirely mistaken, as Mr. Payne's measure does not affect the great lakes, operating under the White act of last year, which it does not in any way amend. I should be pleased if you would, through your valu- able columns, remove this misapprehension. EUGENE T. CHAMBERLAIN, Treasury Department. Commissioner of Navigation, Washington, D. C., Jan. 25, 1896. "ROPER'S LAND AND MARINE ENGINES," BOUND IM MOROCCO WITH FLAP AND POCKET, WILL BE MAILED TO ANY ADDRESS FOR $3.50 sENT TO THE MARINE REVIEW, CLEVELAND, 0.